Personally I boycott all Microsoft products so have to take your word for how it acts during some type of outage. I was just pointing out that it's potentially something that does exist, and it's logical from some perspective. I have seen numerous releases of code from lots of vendors (not just Microsoft) with facilities similar to this. Features do not have to be complete, published, or even fully implemented in order to exist on a system.
Take a common sense view of how this could happen. Xbox kernel sees user input, caches input in case the connection is lost. Cache gets written to drive in case of power failure.
This is the same mindset we see with other Microsoft products like "Active Installer" for IE. Obviously there are security implications but Microsoft chose to put convenience over security.
To many of us, the security problems released are not excusable. To Microsoft, it's the best business decision.
In short, it is not a bad intention that brings something like this out necessarily. It's actually a good intention, but poorly planned from the security perspective.
The problem with your argument is really that the PCI auditors would not be reviewing an Xbox for standards. Those standards normally only apply to servers that house data, not the clients that input data (but also ATM machines and specific devices made to hold that type of data).
This is why you have telemarketers on lord-only-knows what kind of PC inputting data all day through a web browser. The rules cover the Servers that house the data and the connection the client comes in through, but bet your ass if a telemarketer had a keylogger it would not matter how strong the security is on the server or what SSL/TLS version you had.
Game platforms and PCs are not financial devices, and are not subject to the same rules you are claiming to have knowledge of.
I very much agree with others that said the gift as well as the act is not enough to justify staying with that service provider. I'm guessing that if it happened once, it can easily happen again. Sounds like they need to change some policies in order to protect people, and policies generally take a long time to fix.
Now that we have that out of the way, I have to ask the more meaty questions. Do you really put high risk data on servers that you don't own? Do you really trust anyone but your company with your companies secrets? Do you have things in the Cloud that you can not replace?
Lets face facts: Cloud services have no vested interest in your business. They are their to make money from you, so of course they don't want to piss people off. At the same time, the lack of the vested interest means that things can, and often do, fall through the cracks. Their TOS, just like most EULAs from Software vendors protects them from pretty much anything you can think of.
This means that they gave you a gift to keep your revenue coming in, not because you have a chance in hell of taking them to court and winning anything no matter how bad you were harmed.
Cloud is good for some things, but remember that it's not yours. If you don't care about some sales person leaving it at Starbucks, then it's Cloud safe. If you care, then it's not.
I can't tell you how many/. people called this from pretty far back, maybe you were one of them.
I am not a fan of Mega Upload. I would guess that there is _some_ truth to the claims of Piracy. The other accusations such as "Child Pornography" people really need to think about. This has become extremely popular for prosecutors to yell. Just think, when the MPAA, RAA or BSA comes for you and you don't want to surrender your computer to them they will do the same thing.
My hope is that the prosecution is sued after the fact for slander, libel (since this should have been presented to a judge in writing), defamation of character, and a laundry list of other things. Remember folks, this could be you just as easily as this company.
Microsoft has always been one of the best innovators about new technology. Against the popular belief on Slashdot, they have contributed a lot to computer technology, innovations, and of course, Linux too.
First, I really hope you do some investigation on the history of Microsoft and the products that they claim to have innovated. You will find that many of us have very legitimate bias against Microsoft and their so called "innovation".
Example: Microsoft during Windows 95 release was adamant about not producing a TCP/IP stack for Windows claiming that the Internet was a waste of time and there is nobody in their right mind that would use it. Microsoft released and poured cash into their own proprietary network protocol (NetBUI).
When the hopes of crushing the Internet were dashed, Microsoft started releasing a TCP stack which broke communication with non Windows hosts. The original TCP/IP specification was to respond to an ACK once. Microsoft released a stack which sent and expected 2, and invented the term "Crippled Network" for anything that did not respond that way. Throttling bandwidth to any non-Microsoft host to make it appear that anything was slower than Microsoft. (An interesting piece of trivia is that most *NIX was still faster than Windows at networking even with the throttled bandwidth.).
Sun found the (to be kind) quirk that Microsoft had build in to their TCP/IP stack. This was reported everywhere, and most vendors started releasing similar code because Microsoft refused to follow the specification. As vendors migrated their stacks, Microsoft increased the ACK count again. At least they stopped reporting any non windows host as "crippled" which stopped many of the complaints to other vendors about "Why does windows show your OS as crippled?"
This is a company that has done the same with any open specification that they adopt. Kerberos, NFS, LDAP, and the list can go on and on and on.
When it comes to "innovation", Microsoft does do a good job of watching the market and buying up things that appear to be good. Often times, this puts many other good companies out of business. Example here is that in WIndows 98 time, there were several web rating companies. NetNanny, Cybersitter, and more. Windows liked their ideas so much, they put a very limited and broken version of that service in to Windows and put all of those companies out of business. Not so much innovation here, but rather a predatory method of dealing with competition which people dislike.
Stop the hate and accept that Microsoft also has many technically knowledgeable persons who also contribute to Linux. When reading this hate about MS I can't but think that YOU are who is having problems with dealing with it.
Honestly, I think Microsoft has done a good job at giving people a consistent look and feel on a computer. For some odd reason, they do away with in Windows 7, and Office 2010 and the "Ribbons" which is why there is such a low adoption rate and Microsoft started losing more market share than they should.
Outside of the look and feel, Microsoft has not innovated anything in the market. I wish that was a troll statement, but nothing they have done has been "new" or innovative. That's not to say that they have no patents, but every patent I have seen could be invalidated in court. Look at the 7 they are suing B&N for as an example. All 7 of those are either obvious or have prior art. Groklaw has lots of information
When you see all the hate for Microsoft, do you ever wonder if it's warranted?
Sorry, but you need to take Microsoft out of the list. Microsoft was not punished thanks to spending metric assloads of money lobbying congress. Microsoft's punishment by the DOJ was to further entrench their monopoly by giving schools and government offices "free" Microsoft products for 5 years.
The story from Congress which weighed in heavily was that "Breaking up Microsoft would harm the economy." If you think it sounds like the same argument as Mah-Bell and Rockafeller gave, then you would be correct. Shows you how fast and how far along corruption moved in the US in a pretty short amount of time.
Feel free to review all of the details of the case at the US DOJ web site. It's all there including the punishment handed down.
You stated this in a much nicer way than i was going to.
Maybe the Author should have spend a few minutes on Wiki. pre-capitalism and capitalism would be a good start. But also John Smith and probably the most interesting would be Carl Marxx's commentary and viewpoints on Capitalism (and why it would fail).
Honestly I don't see why so many people think that Gnome is the only answer. I have used RedHat and KDE for nearly 10 years without issues. I have supported DOD sites with this requirement due to the KIOSK features built in to KDE, which is similar to Windows group policy without the massive head cramps one can get from configuring the policy and pushing them to clients.
As the other person mentioned, I run RedHat at work and Fedora at home, because it's free and legal. No need to worry about the software police taking me to court and taking my house and firstborn because they claim I downloaded an illegal copy of Windows, or Office, or Windows Media Player, etc...
And before you say it - I know of a couple people that have been taken to court by the BSA for running work software at home illegally (Windows, VISIO and Office), so don't say "that does not happen".
Software pricing back in 1990 was drastically different than it is now. It was around DOS 4.0 where we started to see competition for DOS. When competition was high prices started to drop. DOS 3.0 was over $250.00, and by DOS 6 the prices were down to $80.00. Microsoft had 0 competition for Windows, which was their cash cow. The competition on DOS was the biggest driving factor for the push to Windows 95, it removed the ability to compete for the low level space in DOS.
I'm not Microsoft bashing, as I normally would be. IBM sold Lotus 123 for around 500.00 for the same reason. WordPerfect was in the couple hundred dollar range. The software market changes rapidly, which makes for huge bubbles in profits. New stuff generally costs 10 times what it will cost in a year once some competition comes out.
The OS market bubble popped in the mid 1990s, so no matter what the OS being released there will be no company that can make the profit margins that Microsoft, IBM, Coral, etc.. were making in the early 1990s.
It is really cool to see this thing wide open, as well as all the work that goes in to making a Shuttle "Museum Ready". Most people assume (I assume, so a double whammy) that it's pretty much a fit and stuff type of operation.
You have that right as a consumer, though I do hope you realize that your Windows PC phones home and spies on you so is just as root kitted as anything Sony has done. Also hope you do some homework on what the root kits were actually placed on. Hint: It was not a Playstation.
I'm all about boycott and consumer power on market. As long as you tell others to boycott, and why, it's a damn powerful tool. Be warned though, that if you are dishonest in your reasoning, it tends to backfire and make one look like an ass.
Microsoft's strategy is horrible. If I was a stock holder I would have dumped them as soon as they started selling Xbox for loss. It's also another blatant abuse of their PC monopoly, for which I'm amazed that the people have let the DOJ just look the other way.
No, if Microsoft was to make a game system that actually made a profit I could see the venture. Like the mobile phone market, I don't see a bright future ahead of them. The reputation is poor among gamers. The only people that buy Xbox are people that don't know any better.. or get one "free" with a PC purchase or Windows Phone purchase.
My hope is that in a couple years, as the PC continues to decline, they simply won't be able to afford to keep the line of business. I can hope!
While Microsoft has always produced quality products and by far they are the best on the industry on lots of products, they don't know how to capture that market. They want it badly, but they want to look how Nintendo succeeds with their Wii successor. By delaying the release they can learn from Nintendo's mistakes and hit them hard next year and become the #1 of next generation consoles.
Sorry, but the reason I won't own a Xbox is because of the quality. My Sony devices can run 24/7 and be just fine. Xbox on the other hand tends to burn up if you play regularly (better now, but still not the same quality as Sony or Nintendo).
A few people I worked with were Xbox fans. All of them had the same issues. 5-6 hours of hard game play daily and their Xbox would die. One guy complained to Microsoft after having to have his Xbox replaced for the 4th time in 3 months and received a reply from the something along the lines of "Microsoft expects the average Xbox to run for 1-2 hours per day. Anything beyond that is considered excessive use. Needless to say, he ditched the Microsoft device and went back to PlayStation. I'm glad I never switched.
Best bang for the buck is to spend lobby money on correcting the problem. I hoped long ago that Google and Facebook, who have been built on Open Source knowing the dangers and harm of "Business Process Patents", would fight to fix the problem. Instead, both seem content to play the game.
The worst part, is that it costs them more money to play the game than it would to lobby to correct the issues. I still have hope, especially considering how Google has been beating up Oracle like they are a Kanya girlfriend.. but it's pretty far out there.
Relativity only works when we load the Universe with materials that we guess exist (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). It's a huge amount of speculation. We can make relativity work with items here on Earth much better, but not when we leave the atmosphere. Are many of Einstein's predictions seemingly correct? Sure, but to tout them as law when we know that it does not work is no different than someone pointing at a black book and saying "it's all in there" (I think you get the reference).
As I mention below, there are many Science evangelists that are just as closed minded as there are Religious evangelists. Sadly they evangelize just as hard as them as well.
Science can not answer many things, and lots of people claim it's the answer to everything. I'm not going to retype what I did below, but if you read it.. that's what I'm referring to. There are huge amounts of philosophical questions that go beyond that simple question as well.
Stop spreading false information. Law is proven and theory is theory, it's not some ratio leveling scheme like you claim. The "theory" of gravity is still that, because we lack a great deal of understanding... it's a theory. The models of the Universe and Gravity only work when we put in magic stuff called "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". That is the only way that Einstein's models work. Even then it fails when we encounter things like black holes.
So did Einstein cover more than Newton and do some things better? Sure but the theory of relativity is still just a theory. The theory of the gravitational constant is still a theory. (We believe there is a true "law" out there, but we sure as hell have not found it yet.)
Stop and think.. are you any better than the people being complained about?
The question is "What is the origin of the Universe?"
The fact is that neither evolution or creationism can answer the question. For any strict evolutionists that wish to evangelize "big bang" or "multi-verse" as the answer, save your arguments because they fall short. I have spent years studying the question and debating with people that are brilliant.
I'm not defending zealots on the side of religion, but rather pointing out that I find many of the evolution zealots just as offensive as someone evangelizing any other traditional religion.
"Science" evangelists tend to forget that we have no proper way of defining life, let alone understanding how it occurs. We have some ideas regarding evolution, but if you don't know what caused the Universe to begin with you can't answer the debate of whether there is or is not a "God".
If you wish to investigate the argument, I'd recommend going and reading some of the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (I prefer Aristotle's argument myself). Numerous other philosophers have covered that same ground over and over again since then, but the question still remains valid today.
Sorry, but your science evangelism does not answer the question any more than a book thumping evangelist.
They are attempting to patent this as a process, without a material invented to actually work with the patent. Yet another example of blatant patent abuse that the media is trying to hype as a great thing./sigh
The breathing problem is simple claustrophobia maybe you also had vertigo (I get vertigo after about 15 minutes in a 3T MRI) causing you to panic. There are no real "airflow" problems in an MRI, usually it's fanned which they can control.
Sorry, but you are not correct. Having been through the process about two dozen times (different issues/times) it really depends on the machine and site. I have been in MRIs that have good airflow, but others where there was little to no airflow. As a certified deep sea diver, I can promise that it's not purely claustrophobia.
This is already done to a large degree, at least with what matters in binary code. The "Script kiddie" tools are extremely well documented. This goes way back in time to when a tool came out called (I hope I'm remembering the name right) VCL or Virus Creation Labratory. It became pretty easy to determine VCL based code and the tool set pretty much evaporated.
What editor you use is really unimportant. The compiler is what counts, and the compiler never sees your editor.
First, I rattle off several phrases like "Cloud, synergy, take ownership, metrics, TCO, 5-Nines, and IPV6". Then announce "Now that we have a winner for buzzword bingo I'll move on to an overview of our systems, and key pieces you should know of.
Don't be detailed on anything. You being a techie probably love details. The hot secretary, not so much. Stay with high level views. Primary tools and what the hot secretary may use them for. Engineering probably already knows the details, or can figure it out.
Don't talk to fast, and try to maintain the same tone of voice. You are showing what you have, not preaching or telling people "If it don't change we are all gonna die!". You are probably more excited about parts you built, but remember that nobody else cares.
Span some generation. What we plan to phase out, what we plan to phase in. Old toys, new toys analogies can work.
If you think you need Q&A time, save 5 minutes for Q&A nothing more. Tell people at the start you will have 5 minutes for Q&A. You don't want to give personal training sessions during your presentation. Remember you can reserve "Come see me after the meeting and I'll try to answer that for you." as a defacto answer.
Last part, which many don't think about. PRACTICE! Run it through 1 time yourself with a timer. Make sure you have 25 minutes covered. Last, get a friend, spouse, relative.. and run through the presentation. Get their input and change things accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I boycott all Microsoft products so have to take your word for how it acts during some type of outage. I was just pointing out that it's potentially something that does exist, and it's logical from some perspective. I have seen numerous releases of code from lots of vendors (not just Microsoft) with facilities similar to this. Features do not have to be complete, published, or even fully implemented in order to exist on a system.
Take a common sense view of how this could happen. Xbox kernel sees user input, caches input in case the connection is lost. Cache gets written to drive in case of power failure.
This is the same mindset we see with other Microsoft products like "Active Installer" for IE. Obviously there are security implications but Microsoft chose to put convenience over security.
To many of us, the security problems released are not excusable. To Microsoft, it's the best business decision.
In short, it is not a bad intention that brings something like this out necessarily. It's actually a good intention, but poorly planned from the security perspective.
The problem with your argument is really that the PCI auditors would not be reviewing an Xbox for standards. Those standards normally only apply to servers that house data, not the clients that input data (but also ATM machines and specific devices made to hold that type of data).
This is why you have telemarketers on lord-only-knows what kind of PC inputting data all day through a web browser. The rules cover the Servers that house the data and the connection the client comes in through, but bet your ass if a telemarketer had a keylogger it would not matter how strong the security is on the server or what SSL/TLS version you had.
Game platforms and PCs are not financial devices, and are not subject to the same rules you are claiming to have knowledge of.
I very much agree with others that said the gift as well as the act is not enough to justify staying with that service provider. I'm guessing that if it happened once, it can easily happen again. Sounds like they need to change some policies in order to protect people, and policies generally take a long time to fix.
Now that we have that out of the way, I have to ask the more meaty questions. Do you really put high risk data on servers that you don't own? Do you really trust anyone but your company with your companies secrets? Do you have things in the Cloud that you can not replace?
Lets face facts: Cloud services have no vested interest in your business. They are their to make money from you, so of course they don't want to piss people off. At the same time, the lack of the vested interest means that things can, and often do, fall through the cracks. Their TOS, just like most EULAs from Software vendors protects them from pretty much anything you can think of.
This means that they gave you a gift to keep your revenue coming in, not because you have a chance in hell of taking them to court and winning anything no matter how bad you were harmed.
Cloud is good for some things, but remember that it's not yours. If you don't care about some sales person leaving it at Starbucks, then it's Cloud safe. If you care, then it's not.
What happens to "I know you are but what am I" comments during censorship?
I can't tell you how many /. people called this from pretty far back, maybe you were one of them.
I am not a fan of Mega Upload. I would guess that there is _some_ truth to the claims of Piracy. The other accusations such as "Child Pornography" people really need to think about. This has become extremely popular for prosecutors to yell. Just think, when the MPAA, RAA or BSA comes for you and you don't want to surrender your computer to them they will do the same thing.
My hope is that the prosecution is sued after the fact for slander, libel (since this should have been presented to a judge in writing), defamation of character, and a laundry list of other things. Remember folks, this could be you just as easily as this company.
Microsoft has always been one of the best innovators about new technology. Against the popular belief on Slashdot, they have contributed a lot to computer technology, innovations, and of course, Linux too.
First, I really hope you do some investigation on the history of Microsoft and the products that they claim to have innovated. You will find that many of us have very legitimate bias against Microsoft and their so called "innovation".
Example: Microsoft during Windows 95 release was adamant about not producing a TCP/IP stack for Windows claiming that the Internet was a waste of time and there is nobody in their right mind that would use it. Microsoft released and poured cash into their own proprietary network protocol (NetBUI).
When the hopes of crushing the Internet were dashed, Microsoft started releasing a TCP stack which broke communication with non Windows hosts. The original TCP/IP specification was to respond to an ACK once. Microsoft released a stack which sent and expected 2, and invented the term "Crippled Network" for anything that did not respond that way. Throttling bandwidth to any non-Microsoft host to make it appear that anything was slower than Microsoft. (An interesting piece of trivia is that most *NIX was still faster than Windows at networking even with the throttled bandwidth.).
Sun found the (to be kind) quirk that Microsoft had build in to their TCP/IP stack. This was reported everywhere, and most vendors started releasing similar code because Microsoft refused to follow the specification. As vendors migrated their stacks, Microsoft increased the ACK count again. At least they stopped reporting any non windows host as "crippled" which stopped many of the complaints to other vendors about "Why does windows show your OS as crippled?"
This is a company that has done the same with any open specification that they adopt. Kerberos, NFS, LDAP, and the list can go on and on and on.
When it comes to "innovation", Microsoft does do a good job of watching the market and buying up things that appear to be good. Often times, this puts many other good companies out of business. Example here is that in WIndows 98 time, there were several web rating companies. NetNanny, Cybersitter, and more. Windows liked their ideas so much, they put a very limited and broken version of that service in to Windows and put all of those companies out of business. Not so much innovation here, but rather a predatory method of dealing with competition which people dislike.
Stop the hate and accept that Microsoft also has many technically knowledgeable persons who also contribute to Linux. When reading this hate about MS I can't but think that YOU are who is having problems with dealing with it.
Honestly, I think Microsoft has done a good job at giving people a consistent look and feel on a computer. For some odd reason, they do away with in Windows 7, and Office 2010 and the "Ribbons" which is why there is such a low adoption rate and Microsoft started losing more market share than they should.
Outside of the look and feel, Microsoft has not innovated anything in the market. I wish that was a troll statement, but nothing they have done has been "new" or innovative. That's not to say that they have no patents, but every patent I have seen could be invalidated in court. Look at the 7 they are suing B&N for as an example. All 7 of those are either obvious or have prior art. Groklaw has lots of information
When you see all the hate for Microsoft, do you ever wonder if it's warranted?
French Music Agency surrenders the belief that it's all due to piracy, realizes it's crappy industry practices.
Up next, French Police surrender to an armed gang of "thugs".
Sorry, but you need to take Microsoft out of the list. Microsoft was not punished thanks to spending metric assloads of money lobbying congress. Microsoft's punishment by the DOJ was to further entrench their monopoly by giving schools and government offices "free" Microsoft products for 5 years.
The story from Congress which weighed in heavily was that "Breaking up Microsoft would harm the economy." If you think it sounds like the same argument as Mah-Bell and Rockafeller gave, then you would be correct. Shows you how fast and how far along corruption moved in the US in a pretty short amount of time.
Feel free to review all of the details of the case at the US DOJ web site. It's all there including the punishment handed down.
You stated this in a much nicer way than i was going to.
Maybe the Author should have spend a few minutes on Wiki. pre-capitalism and capitalism would be a good start. But also John Smith and probably the most interesting would be Carl Marxx's commentary and viewpoints on Capitalism (and why it would fail).
Honestly I don't see why so many people think that Gnome is the only answer. I have used RedHat and KDE for nearly 10 years without issues. I have supported DOD sites with this requirement due to the KIOSK features built in to KDE, which is similar to Windows group policy without the massive head cramps one can get from configuring the policy and pushing them to clients.
As the other person mentioned, I run RedHat at work and Fedora at home, because it's free and legal. No need to worry about the software police taking me to court and taking my house and firstborn because they claim I downloaded an illegal copy of Windows, or Office, or Windows Media Player, etc...
And before you say it - I know of a couple people that have been taken to court by the BSA for running work software at home illegally (Windows, VISIO and Office), so don't say "that does not happen".
Software pricing back in 1990 was drastically different than it is now. It was around DOS 4.0 where we started to see competition for DOS. When competition was high prices started to drop. DOS 3.0 was over $250.00, and by DOS 6 the prices were down to $80.00. Microsoft had 0 competition for Windows, which was their cash cow. The competition on DOS was the biggest driving factor for the push to Windows 95, it removed the ability to compete for the low level space in DOS.
I'm not Microsoft bashing, as I normally would be. IBM sold Lotus 123 for around 500.00 for the same reason. WordPerfect was in the couple hundred dollar range. The software market changes rapidly, which makes for huge bubbles in profits. New stuff generally costs 10 times what it will cost in a year once some competition comes out.
The OS market bubble popped in the mid 1990s, so no matter what the OS being released there will be no company that can make the profit margins that Microsoft, IBM, Coral, etc.. were making in the early 1990s.
It is really cool to see this thing wide open, as well as all the work that goes in to making a Shuttle "Museum Ready". Most people assume (I assume, so a double whammy) that it's pretty much a fit and stuff type of operation.
You have that right as a consumer, though I do hope you realize that your Windows PC phones home and spies on you so is just as root kitted as anything Sony has done. Also hope you do some homework on what the root kits were actually placed on. Hint: It was not a Playstation.
I'm all about boycott and consumer power on market. As long as you tell others to boycott, and why, it's a damn powerful tool. Be warned though, that if you are dishonest in your reasoning, it tends to backfire and make one look like an ass.
Microsoft's strategy is horrible. If I was a stock holder I would have dumped them as soon as they started selling Xbox for loss. It's also another blatant abuse of their PC monopoly, for which I'm amazed that the people have let the DOJ just look the other way.
No, if Microsoft was to make a game system that actually made a profit I could see the venture. Like the mobile phone market, I don't see a bright future ahead of them. The reputation is poor among gamers. The only people that buy Xbox are people that don't know any better.. or get one "free" with a PC purchase or Windows Phone purchase.
My hope is that in a couple years, as the PC continues to decline, they simply won't be able to afford to keep the line of business. I can hope!
While Microsoft has always produced quality products and by far they are the best on the industry on lots of products, they don't know how to capture that market. They want it badly, but they want to look how Nintendo succeeds with their Wii successor. By delaying the release they can learn from Nintendo's mistakes and hit them hard next year and become the #1 of next generation consoles.
Sorry, but the reason I won't own a Xbox is because of the quality. My Sony devices can run 24/7 and be just fine. Xbox on the other hand tends to burn up if you play regularly (better now, but still not the same quality as Sony or Nintendo).
A few people I worked with were Xbox fans. All of them had the same issues. 5-6 hours of hard game play daily and their Xbox would die. One guy complained to Microsoft after having to have his Xbox replaced for the 4th time in 3 months and received a reply from the something along the lines of "Microsoft expects the average Xbox to run for 1-2 hours per day. Anything beyond that is considered excessive use. Needless to say, he ditched the Microsoft device and went back to PlayStation. I'm glad I never switched.
Best bang for the buck is to spend lobby money on correcting the problem. I hoped long ago that Google and Facebook, who have been built on Open Source knowing the dangers and harm of "Business Process Patents", would fight to fix the problem. Instead, both seem content to play the game.
The worst part, is that it costs them more money to play the game than it would to lobby to correct the issues. I still have hope, especially considering how Google has been beating up Oracle like they are a Kanya girlfriend.. but it's pretty far out there.
Lenny was not at fault, it was some homeless guy petting you.
I'm sure there are countless politicians with a hard on just thinking about how to use this...
Relativity only works when we load the Universe with materials that we guess exist (Dark Matter and Dark Energy). It's a huge amount of speculation. We can make relativity work with items here on Earth much better, but not when we leave the atmosphere. Are many of Einstein's predictions seemingly correct? Sure, but to tout them as law when we know that it does not work is no different than someone pointing at a black book and saying "it's all in there" (I think you get the reference).
As I mention below, there are many Science evangelists that are just as closed minded as there are Religious evangelists. Sadly they evangelize just as hard as them as well.
Science can not answer many things, and lots of people claim it's the answer to everything. I'm not going to retype what I did below, but if you read it.. that's what I'm referring to. There are huge amounts of philosophical questions that go beyond that simple question as well.
Stop spreading false information. Law is proven and theory is theory, it's not some ratio leveling scheme like you claim. The "theory" of gravity is still that, because we lack a great deal of understanding... it's a theory. The models of the Universe and Gravity only work when we put in magic stuff called "Dark Energy" and "Dark Matter". That is the only way that Einstein's models work. Even then it fails when we encounter things like black holes.
So did Einstein cover more than Newton and do some things better? Sure but the theory of relativity is still just a theory. The theory of the gravitational constant is still a theory. (We believe there is a true "law" out there, but we sure as hell have not found it yet.)
Stop and think.. are you any better than the people being complained about?
The question is "What is the origin of the Universe?"
The fact is that neither evolution or creationism can answer the question. For any strict evolutionists that wish to evangelize "big bang" or "multi-verse" as the answer, save your arguments because they fall short. I have spent years studying the question and debating with people that are brilliant.
I'm not defending zealots on the side of religion, but rather pointing out that I find many of the evolution zealots just as offensive as someone evangelizing any other traditional religion.
"Science" evangelists tend to forget that we have no proper way of defining life, let alone understanding how it occurs. We have some ideas regarding evolution, but if you don't know what caused the Universe to begin with you can't answer the debate of whether there is or is not a "God".
If you wish to investigate the argument, I'd recommend going and reading some of the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle (I prefer Aristotle's argument myself). Numerous other philosophers have covered that same ground over and over again since then, but the question still remains valid today.
Sorry, but your science evangelism does not answer the question any more than a book thumping evangelist.
They are attempting to patent this as a process, without a material invented to actually work with the patent. Yet another example of blatant patent abuse that the media is trying to hype as a great thing. /sigh
The breathing problem is simple claustrophobia maybe you also had vertigo (I get vertigo after about 15 minutes in a 3T MRI) causing you to panic. There are no real "airflow" problems in an MRI, usually it's fanned which they can control.
Sorry, but you are not correct. Having been through the process about two dozen times (different issues/times) it really depends on the machine and site. I have been in MRIs that have good airflow, but others where there was little to no airflow. As a certified deep sea diver, I can promise that it's not purely claustrophobia.
This is already done to a large degree, at least with what matters in binary code. The "Script kiddie" tools are extremely well documented. This goes way back in time to when a tool came out called (I hope I'm remembering the name right) VCL or Virus Creation Labratory. It became pretty easy to determine VCL based code and the tool set pretty much evaporated.
What editor you use is really unimportant. The compiler is what counts, and the compiler never sees your editor.
First, I rattle off several phrases like "Cloud, synergy, take ownership, metrics, TCO, 5-Nines, and IPV6". Then announce "Now that we have a winner for buzzword bingo I'll move on to an overview of our systems, and key pieces you should know of.
Don't be detailed on anything. You being a techie probably love details. The hot secretary, not so much. Stay with high level views. Primary tools and what the hot secretary may use them for. Engineering probably already knows the details, or can figure it out.
Don't talk to fast, and try to maintain the same tone of voice. You are showing what you have, not preaching or telling people "If it don't change we are all gonna die!". You are probably more excited about parts you built, but remember that nobody else cares.
Span some generation. What we plan to phase out, what we plan to phase in. Old toys, new toys analogies can work.
If you think you need Q&A time, save 5 minutes for Q&A nothing more. Tell people at the start you will have 5 minutes for Q&A. You don't want to give personal training sessions during your presentation. Remember you can reserve "Come see me after the meeting and I'll try to answer that for you." as a defacto answer.
Last part, which many don't think about. PRACTICE! Run it through 1 time yourself with a timer. Make sure you have 25 minutes covered. Last, get a friend, spouse, relative.. and run through the presentation. Get their input and change things accordingly.